The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has released a review fiercely criticizing the inclusion of the Steele dossier in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
The review, commissioned by current CIA Director John Ratcliffe, argues that several key decisions by intelligence officials during the Obama administration damaged the credibility of the assessment against Donald Trump, who was president at the time, as the Daily Caller reports.
Obama-era intelligence leaders pushed for the controversial Steele Dossier to be part of the key assessment concerning Russian meddling in the 2016 election. The inclusion of this dossier, heavily reliant on open sources and compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele for opposition research firm Fusion GPS, faced considerable criticism from within the CIA itself.
Notably, then-CIA Director John Brennan was instrumental in ensuring the dossier's inclusion, despite several warning signals by CIA personnel. Analysts warned against using the Steele dossier due to non-compliance with standard intelligence practices and concerns over its substance.
The CIA’s deputy director for analysis cautioned Brennan against including the dossier in an email dated December 29, 2016. It was highlighted that incorporating it might jeopardize the entire assessment's reliability, as noted in the recent review findings.
The dossier insinuated a conspiracy involving Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Kremlin. While many agency staff members were opposed to relying on it, the full extent of influence and implications continued to unravel over the years.
The newly released review points out several shortcomings in the design and preparation process of the 2017 ICA. These shortcomings included an expedited timeline, limited information sharing, and an unusual degree of agency head involvement, all considered deviations from established norms in the drafting and review processes.
Ratcliffe, in an interview with the New York Post, asserted that Barack Obama, alongside officials like then-FBI Director James Comey, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and Brennan, seemed to be intent on damaging Trump's standing. According to Ratcliffe, these moves were steered more by the narrative the dossier supported than by intelligence rigor.
Despite heavy objections internally, the 2017 report determined that Russia had favored Trump and aimed to sow distrust in the American electoral system. This conclusion has since been a focal point of heated political discourse surrounding the integrity of the 2016 election.
Rep. Rick Crawford criticized the CIA's review as falling significantly short of a comprehensive account of the Russian election interference narrative and the alleged deep state involvement. Crawford, speaking on behalf of congressional oversights, expressed frustration at the review's inadequacy in conveying the complete narrative they perceived.
Furthermore, more concern was raised regarding the restrictions placed by the CIA on accessing a related report assembled during the 116th Congress. Crawford emphasized the necessity of making such documentation available to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Devin Nunes initially led efforts to produce this report during the 116th Congress, with Crawford noting continued resistance from the CIA. Despite extensive dialogue with the agency, access remains restricted, obstructing further congressional review.
Crawford detailed his attempts to retrieve the document, having formally written to Director Ratcliffe in March 2025. His letter insisted on transferring the congressional document to HPSCI without delay.
As tensions over access and transparency ensue, these calls underscore a broader issue of comprehensive oversight over intelligence assessments and the political fabric to which they connect.
With the CIA's review now public, the debate over the dossier's impact on historical and contemporary political landscapes persists. The broader implications for relations between political entities and intelligence agencies continue to unfold.
